From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5915C432BE for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:46:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA75160EB4 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:46:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235277AbhGWNFr (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:05:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53710 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235243AbhGWNFp (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:05:45 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1907AC061575 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id b21so1717521ljo.13 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=R+ag2d72KvvFEXZNBsdQcAfMeju6Pa8JiIFVIvwyZAs=; b=Bel0NWzfFa7+d0KBmjVVM5nyRPf5LEz7p5f/UNtfAB3KKC96xHbvTXWvvBbDrM72ZT SXzM2conoYeEZZEkJzsgAfViHZODQnnziIxW6NqqsuypTghZgf8poGb2JK44l6zAAcaC i9Zy6ftMma9CWf8ne5JIemBQgOSSMEEMmUCloaNBkmVSkf/4xN9A9PdqMccjr86sO/L0 SlZ2zOvit+JbzDXBXK2HNeAo9yEGfaIhs58ErsHRUutYP/eJa7m9LcUCFmPE1kKKpqWX WV/fA8ZMK01uTIlDsfdmpgAb14HExE356njQnykVutaFhedklFS4hrmq3dh94Ebo0o7a JtWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R+ag2d72KvvFEXZNBsdQcAfMeju6Pa8JiIFVIvwyZAs=; b=dQM1FW47G60vmzDa5CvD7EgnIZtGlio/RdodbkXtQDazqGV8f42NZa+J0wvsygeHpP xaF4vT0LfoWroEkgsvQJiAS0D77QkZYdLp+mmRJiUsOjK4UHxxYJJqb142bTCPjPAvqp MCh4n1ssbSDiD3E1UTkKCzL9jA0uwWzI2buFqku1elyVxVAj+BjOhepm0u4pAomtii7H cQIZ87CBH6boU7+WGMhSd65UMusKibIg648sAoUdwA4DS261l89wMi/icZNdTdyjmkp8 eDdJR38Bh+RL4ZGsK3sbUTPDzvfQpTiydqJOJVZaCpc1mzmd/2kCtgKOjWtEB5//ddCc pPdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532irfi3g3SxO4PiAiWoDGcaeYyFOZ636/JpKKxfdRleClH57Okh pwD+InmOcA13fW2kYWbpGygsxLk53wt0iv9Xw3imGA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHBOisaZMsrpVGL5IjrNztOtO9ALzW8qKpkWXbWzvMb52gUbcej6/EFccqagBqkkFhvSoB5KjNacZFYxqbkBQ= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ec1:: with SMTP id h1mr3464593ljk.0.1627047977179; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210723011436.60960-1-surenb@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: introduce process_mrelease system call To: Michal Hocko Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christian Brauner , Christoph Hellwig , Oleg Nesterov , David Hildenbrand , Jann Horn , Andy Lutomirski , Christian Brauner , Florian Weimer , Jan Engelhardt , Tim Murray , Linux API , Linux MM , LKML , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:53 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > However > > retrying means issuing another syscall, so additional overhead... > > I guess such "best effort" approach would be unusual for a syscall, so > > maybe we can keep it as it is now and if such "do not block" mode is needed > > we can use flags to implement it later? > > Yeah, an explicit opt-in via flags would be an option if that turns out > to be really necessary. > I am fine with keeping it as it is but we do need the non-blocking option (via flags) to enable userspace to act more aggressively. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4008C4338F for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333E660EB1 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:46:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 333E660EB1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B77A06B005D; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id B27856B006C; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:46:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9EFA56B0070; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:46:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0136.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.136]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D7C6B005D for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E1A20BC5 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:46:19 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78393976878.05.CC1FC7E Received: from mail-lj1-f170.google.com (mail-lj1-f170.google.com [209.85.208.170]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C973000254 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:46:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f170.google.com with SMTP id l4so1772784ljq.4 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=R+ag2d72KvvFEXZNBsdQcAfMeju6Pa8JiIFVIvwyZAs=; b=Bel0NWzfFa7+d0KBmjVVM5nyRPf5LEz7p5f/UNtfAB3KKC96xHbvTXWvvBbDrM72ZT SXzM2conoYeEZZEkJzsgAfViHZODQnnziIxW6NqqsuypTghZgf8poGb2JK44l6zAAcaC i9Zy6ftMma9CWf8ne5JIemBQgOSSMEEMmUCloaNBkmVSkf/4xN9A9PdqMccjr86sO/L0 SlZ2zOvit+JbzDXBXK2HNeAo9yEGfaIhs58ErsHRUutYP/eJa7m9LcUCFmPE1kKKpqWX WV/fA8ZMK01uTIlDsfdmpgAb14HExE356njQnykVutaFhedklFS4hrmq3dh94Ebo0o7a JtWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R+ag2d72KvvFEXZNBsdQcAfMeju6Pa8JiIFVIvwyZAs=; b=XcOTe/smmyHyPrFFGvPab+9irgc69zIsAqAuLv7diipTcVwHu3f07Dm6DMjcVxi+zP 3EEHAm+Nbwx7m2sD4XzENjDz0N+TfjbvRUSpneuD/UsZpR8zcOnamd1X2q4APPYEV3I2 wqUWUXDCo0jP1uCrG06988MumK09MtbdLc/i0Kj7WKK2qnS+8REQw+damC6K17zC0ip9 fppOOeof12t6TChExB3jg1oTjtnA0kWj+/A37/UrsZxA11h0lsd2hQdsw3enpudaNTEt 4mED6m+wWus0JZqdcYY2Ru3FynB597tvEa0XRjWCMXJx6t1S0y80Zf32XO8Pp3leP8md KTGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531C6LBWzHo/bWiH3Q+12PIajBvTuP7XrDQnI7MHioVYlc6CuSvw Xm+ATglsQa99mqqMjg/LIhf9f3/wLnH2718/eEe9pw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHBOisaZMsrpVGL5IjrNztOtO9ALzW8qKpkWXbWzvMb52gUbcej6/EFccqagBqkkFhvSoB5KjNacZFYxqbkBQ= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ec1:: with SMTP id h1mr3464593ljk.0.1627047977179; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210723011436.60960-1-surenb@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 06:46:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: introduce process_mrelease system call To: Michal Hocko Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christian Brauner , Christoph Hellwig , Oleg Nesterov , David Hildenbrand , Jann Horn , Andy Lutomirski , Christian Brauner , Florian Weimer , Jan Engelhardt , Tim Murray , Linux API , Linux MM , LKML , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F0C973000254 Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=Bel0NWzf; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.208.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com X-Stat-Signature: brd6rpb6obp6waq1p966dmp4uf5uhjjt X-HE-Tag: 1627047978-12120 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:53 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > However > > retrying means issuing another syscall, so additional overhead... > > I guess such "best effort" approach would be unusual for a syscall, so > > maybe we can keep it as it is now and if such "do not block" mode is needed > > we can use flags to implement it later? > > Yeah, an explicit opt-in via flags would be an option if that turns out > to be really necessary. > I am fine with keeping it as it is but we do need the non-blocking option (via flags) to enable userspace to act more aggressively.